IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J.
Inox Air Products Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Air Liquide North India Private Limited – Respondent
O.M.P. (COMM) 212 of 2018 & I.A. 6847 of 2018
Decided On : 24-03-2023
Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Application under Section 34(4) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The court analyzed the scope of Section 34(4) of the Act in light of various judgments and concluded that it would not be appropriate to take recourse to the provision in the present case.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent invoked Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking an adjournment to give the Arbitral Tribunal an opportunity to resume the arbitration proceedings and eliminate the ground for setting aside the arbitral award, relating to non-consideration of the petitioner's documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that it would not be appropriate to take recourse to Section 34(4) of the Act in the present case and dismissed the application.
Issues: The main issue was whether Section 34(4) of the Act is applicable in the present situation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the scope of Section 34(4) of the Act in light of various judgments and concluded that it would not be appropriate to take recourse to the provision in the present case.
Final Decision: The application was dismissed, and parties were left to bear their own costs.
JUDGMENT
I.A. 1606/2019 (Application by the respondent under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996)
1. By way of this application, the respondent in O.M.P(COMM.) 212/2018, Air Liquide North India Private Limited, invokes Section an adjournment for a fixed period of time, in order to give the Arbitral Tribunal an opportunity to resume the arbitration proceedings to eliminate the ground for setting aside the arbitral award, relating to non-consideration of the petitioner's documents.
A. Facts
2. The facts in which the application has been filed are as follows:
A. The parties entered into a Sales and Purchase Agreement dated 14.12.2009/19.12.2009, whereunder the respondent was to supply Liquid Oxygen and Liquid Nitrogen to the petitioner.
B. Disputes arose between the parties and an arbitrator was appointed by this Court vide order dated 21.01.2015 in ARB. P. 410/2013. The respondent raised various claims before the learned arbitrator, including claims of Rs.41,73,747/- under a debit note dated 11.08.2011/16.08.2011 and a claim of Rs.1,87,62,502/- under a debit note dated 07.11.2012/19.10.2012 with interest thereupon. The petitioner disputed those claims and also filed a counter-claim of Rs.5,39,79,500/-.
C. During the course of proceedings before the learned arbitrator, the petitioner sought to file documents enumerated as Annexures A-1 to A-60.1 [Annexure 26(colly) of the petitioner's list of documents] The documents were taken on record by an order of the learned arbitrator dated 05.12.2015, subject to payment of costs.2 [Annexure 25 (colly) of the petitioner's list of documents] The learned arbitrator further recorded that the documents in any case would have to be proved in accordance with law.
D. Affidavits of evidence were filed by the parties and recording of the statement of the claimant's [respondent herein] witness commenced. At this stage, the learned arbitrator passed the following order on 25.01.20163: [Annexure 28 of the petitioner's list of documents]
"The Tribunal had started recording the statement of the Claimant's witness. However, after some cross examination, it was agreed between the parties that there is no need of recording any oral evidence and the matter can straight away be fixed for arguments. It is also agreed that whatever oral evidence was recorded today will not be read.
While fixing dates, it was noticed that the venue at the Delhi International Arbitration Centre is not available till middle of March-2016. Parties, therefore, agreed that matter may be fixed for arguments in the office of Arbitral Tribunal.
In view of the above, the matter will come up for arguments on 25.02.2016 at 3PM, 29.02.2016 at 5PM and on 03.03.2016 at 3PM for arguments in the office of the Arbitral Tribunal at A-27, Defence Colony, New Delhi. The E-mails placed on record by the parties will be read without any formal proof. It will be appreciated if the parties file a brief synopsis of their respective case at least three days before the date fixed for arguments." [Emphasis supplied]
E. The learned arbitrator unfortunately passed away, following which this Court appointed a substitute arbitrator by order dated 25.05.2017 in O.M.P.(T)(COMM.) 19/2017.
F. The learned arbitrator formulated eight issues for his consideration, of which issue No. 4 is reproduced below4: [Page 8 of the award in annexure-1 of the petitioner's list of documents]
"4. Whether the Respondent proves that the Claimant by price under cutting and soliciting clients was in fundamental breach of the contract between the parties."
G. After hearing the parties, the learned arbitrator passed the impugned award dated 02.02.2018, by which a sum of Rs.2,29,36,249/- has been awarded in favour of the respondent herein, alongwith interest and costs.
3. One of the grounds of challenge raised by the petitioner herein pertains to the failure of the learned arbitrator to consider the additional documents filed by the petitioner in Annexures A1 to A60. The is
Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd.
Arbitral Award – Hearing the parties once again - Permitting Arbitrator to hear the parties de novo will enlarge the mandate of Section 34(4) - 13 years have passed since the Arbitrator last heard th....
Challenge to Arbitral Award – Under guise of additional reasons and filling up gaps in reasoning, no award can be remitted to Arbitrator, where there are no findings on contentious issues in award – ....
Setting aside of Arbitral award – Section 34 application will not ordinarily require anything beyond record that was before arbitration and cross-examination of persons swearing in to affidavits shou....
Remission under Section 34(4) is limited to correcting curable defects and cannot be used for a review of the award.
The Arbitral Tribunal erred in calling for additional materials being the data entered into by the parties during the execution of the contract and the relevant software, from the claimant, well afte....
The court established that an arbitral award can be set aside if it contravenes the principles of natural justice and public policy, particularly when crucial evidence is introduced after the conclus....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.